Nanana909

Those interested in seeing funding devoted towards the study of this would do well do steer away from the political COVID branding. And if that’s too hard, call it “post COVID disease” or something.

Your first article:

> Lingering prenatal effects

So not “long influenza”.

“Lingering effects of influenza”, which I stated obviously can exist. Would you associate the words “long marriage” with “lingering effects of marriage”?

Not a single one of your sources used “long X” terminology. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because “long X” in the English language refers to either a large length or a large duration of time. Not “after effects”.

I suspect the authors of each paper knew this and intentionally made sure not to imply it was a continued disease. But I suppose when something is politicized people find it hard to move on, such as the COVID era.

> Long COVID is broadly defined as signs, symptoms, and conditions that continue or develop after initial COVID-19 infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/...

Emphasis on “Continue or develop”.

> With both RSV and influenza, infection as a baby or toddler seems to increase the likelihood of asthma in later life. Do we talk about asthma?

I think this reinforces my point succinctly. It’s not “extended RSV” or “persistent influenza”, it’s asthma.

COVID is a completely politicized term and dying on a hill to use it to describe symptoms people are stuck with after recovering from the acute disease, especially in a way that implies they’re still infected, is just - well you can see what it does.

Wasn’t COVID a virus? So it seems like we already have a word to describe this? post-viral fatigue

99.999% of the population, including those who claim they have long COVID, do not know the words “persistent spike proteins” or “post COVID sequelae”.

Therefore I assert you are incorrect, “long COVID” implies a “long case of COVID”. Similar to how no one would interpret “long marriage” to mean the after-effects of marriage.

P.S. no I will not cite a source for the statistic nor will I cite one for the sky being blue.

> For COVID to cause severe illness in a few % -- enough to kill in rare cases -- but to not cause permanent lung or heart or kidney damage etc. in some significant percent who got very sick is implausible, even incoherent with all other theories about how viral diseases cause disease.

So then why do we never talk about long flu? Long meningitis? I don’t think people are in disbelief COVID can cause long term damage to specific people. Obviously that’s a possibility.

I think they don’t believe there is a specific disease called “long COVID”. Call it what it is - be that a damaged lung or heart or kidney. Hell even “post COVID symptomatic disease”. But “long COVID” strongly implies that you have a long, currently present case of COVID. That somehow just doesn’t show up on any tests. After 2 years.

Yes. There’s also a slightly different version of it it blink shell, which packages a web version of vscode as well. In general this one performs a little better imo and has integrations with local filesystems

I do web dev casually with it all the time via a vpn to my server back home and the inspect app for debugging

The Magic Keyboard is so nice, what do you mean? It feels nicer than most laptop keyboards

Does the alternative exist - being uninformed and eager to criticize power? How are we meant to differentiate the two?

I think one way is to note that this post was about being inaccurately charged with a felony - not about cops. The request for stats was not “cop stats” but identity fraud based felony and as a result arrest at routine traffic stop.

If a cop sees you have multiple felonies in another state, it’s quite literally their job to arrest you. Do you suggest they see someone charged with multiple felonies and just say have a good day?

No, the post was about being charged inaccurately due to identity theft. Perhaps you are overly eager to criticize police and became uninformed with reading the comment thread.

Then some statistics shouldn’t be hard to find.

I can’t find anything stating this is “very common”. I guess as a rough metric for “very common” let’s say on a similar level to heart attacks. Quite rare still but common enough that you could be justified in calling it very common.

So 850,000 cases per year.

Third option:

People who own a computer but prefer the iPad form factor, (taller aspect ratio is nice for code), and like having a portable 120Hz whiteboard, and arent afraid of operating said computer remotely via the iPad.

What crime is it for the NSA/CIA, who are explicitly tasked by the government with gathering intelligence on foreign agencies, to hack say Mullwad, a Swedish entity? That’s like saying it’s a murder for the police to shoot someone who has hostages. I mean yes it’s the same action, but when it’s been deemed justified by the government, it’s not really a crime in the same way.

A crime in Sweden perhaps. Who will Sweden charge? Do they even have names for individual employees?

It’s also a “crime” to sell false and compromised products to customers yet CryptoAG existed for decades.

> At such time as you become an international drug lord your privacy is likely to fall apart when Sam starts serving providers who do business with you.

Then you’re simply agreeing under point 2, I.e they have they ability to coerce cooperation when desired

Is it that wild? There are a few questions we have to ask

1. Do these agencies have the motivation to do the above? I think the answer here is an obvious yes to everyone

2. Do these agencies have the technical ability to hack the VPNs, the finances to pay them for access, or some other reasonable measure to coerce compliance?

If 1 and 2 are both true, then the OP claim is also certainly true.

Given that 1 is true, I don’t think it’s “wild” to claim that these agencies cannot satisfy 2. In fact I’d say given the historical record, the more wild claim is that the CIA/NSA etc is incapable of satisfying #2.

Why pay for a whole month though? Depending on your work, spin it up and down as needed. If you're just building a binary you only need it up for minutes or seconds. Been on my mind lately. Lot more sandboxing too. And if you want to build fast you can just scale up your instance since its so short lived. Want to switch from x86 to ARM? no problem. Spin up 40 of your current app? no problem.

I am consideirng going pure ipad + ssh an AWS instance as a dev environment. i already just use ipad + ssh local machine. would have as much automation as possible to spin things up/down when developing. I don't know how I'd set this up to be nice and seamless just yet.

Pay for 3 years of AWS savings plans to make it cheap. Perhaps run a permanent instance for small things, make a setup that lets me spin up super power machines when i actually want to build.

Most of the time I'm at my ipad remoting in Im not actually compiling, just editing. I can just edit locally and pay for the few seconds/minutes it takes to build..

because honestly after about 3 years i always want to upgrade

and i can get windows that are completely functional for me on remote monitors with ipad now. just starting to wonder why im paying for physical compute power but 99% of the time browsing the web and editing code but not building it.

i love orbstack, like actually love it to the point where now i have to complain about its issues a lot, because i cant use anything else still has a lot of things to imrpove on in general, which are annoying when you encounter them suddenly. most frustrating for me is the "unlimited permission" setup. Sometimes thats useful as hell. Other times i would indeed like to run a servive using the convinience of orb stack, but you know, a little more sandboxed...I loved /Users/yyy/Documents being tied to my iCloud Drive. Had to disable that once i started using orbstack for personal reasons. orbctl / orb really need much more explanation of a lot of the options. especially whatever the config options do.

or let me bind to other network interfaces not just the one :(

but i love orbstack. hard too go back after finding it. impossible actually. havent been at the computer in like two weeks so mabye its changed by now

I think you're looking for too much out of a versioning scheme.

If you're seeing 1.2.3 -> 2.2.3, updates, i..e the dev is saying THIS 100% BREAKS SOMETHING IN MY OPINION, and you just do your normal set of analysis and walk away happy that's a bit scary.

If you do anything other than your normal analysis, you've just gone ahead and used semver.

The EU is also vast with huge variations. I think it’s a general, average comparison.

> the project seemed like it was led by woke people that pushed politics into the programming space which imo is completely unnecessary

You’re not wrong, to a degree, but avoiding the language because of this is exactly the wrong take. Instead, if more people use it these sentiments are diluted and approach the median. IMO by even caring about this at all in your language decisions, you’re engaging in the exact same kind of game as those people are.

It seemed quite pretentious and dismissive to me too. Sorry, didn’t intend to imply I agreed fully with the quote. But there is a deeper point which is part of our root comment: is it a genuine effort or a negotiation tactic?

I agree with you on the “realities of long term software development”. But I think I believe there is a fundamental difference between the standard realities on a successful enterprise project and the language itself.

That is, the latter needs to balance the needs of a much, much wider array of customers (all rust compiler users) versus the former with a more specific target user base.

This introduces different requirements. Changes are far, far more likely to be permanent for example. Which means that the discussion around decisions needs to be different.

Agree on all points. Something needs to change in the Rust foundation fundamentally.

But as far as forks go this one seems quite low effort. Does the tactic work if the other side knows what you’re doing?

From Ashley Williams, former founding member of the Rust Foundation (I don’t support her pretentious tone here)[1]:

> "I don't think any of the folks who are part of it are language designers," said Williams. "They didn't even do a full find-and-replace on the word 'rust' the repo. But the community doesn't have a lot of recourse in situations like this besides making kind of ridiculous gestures [to say] 'hey, we want you to engage with us differently.'"

Personally I’d be interested in ideas for alternate governance models for Rust. Should package maintainers with over a certain threshold of users be given votes? Could strike the balance between complete direct democracy anarchy and an opaque small group making the choices.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2023/04/17/rust_foundation_a...

Oh no, is this a new variant?!

> then why am I being asked to bail out a generation's college loans?

Wouldn't that fit perfectly with the comment you're responding to? Because the money is there. In fact I'd expect us to be bailing people out as we get richer. Less govern

> then why is food bank use at an all time high?

Food insecurity is no where near an all time high. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...

So perhaps there are just more people! (Anything can be an "all time high" or "record X" if you ignore this fact). Or local trust in food banks has risen. Or food banks have more money now to hand out more food.

> then why are more six-figure earners reporting to be living paycheck-to-paycheck?

Because the popular report you're citing here, sponsored by lending service LendingClub, includes buying groceries on a credit card as "living paycheck to paycheck" even if you're paying it off each month and only doing it for the points.

> then why is personal credit card debt at an all time high?

Because there are more people! Or are you actually talking about debt as a percent of income which is a more realistic stat? Because people spend less on their debt now than almost ever. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSP

To me, the authors opening remark seems misleading at best. But of course criticisms of capitalism must begin by ignoring their hypotheses under a different or past regime:

> One of the most salient archetypes of our current period is called “success to the successful,” which fairly well describes twenty-first-century capitalism

The implication being this is some new facet of our modern society, and not a part of past ones.

I can’t think of a time period, especially when considering a global scale, when the authors claim of “success to the successful” was not true.

In fact, I would say it is less true than ever before. Note that this isn’t the same as saying it does not apply now. Before the internet what opportunities existed for someone in say, rural Africa, to teach themselves skills to obtain success. Now? Marginal, sure, but absolutely present.

> If it's because of China, then ban TikTok and subsidize a competitor app - but be serious about it. Be ready to spend hundreds of .....

Domestic competitors have already published their equivalents though, no subsidied required. It's not a very complicated app - they had clones up in months. Most popular Tik-Tokers already repost their content on these anyways.

Why do we need to subsidize naything? This already exists.

IMO this sounds a bit more like an argument for banning the "vast majority" of VPN apps on the Google/App stores apparently re-routing all traffic to enemies (though I'm skeptical) and less of an argument as to whether or not TikTok should be banned.

I responded in detail him about, but honestly I can't think of many that answer your qiestion. It's amost always the opposite. A I like to present this as stereotypical example of the types of differences you find the two, IMO. Generating a 3x3 matrix of random booleans.

>Julia

  A = rand(Bool,3,3)

Python: No standard support for Matrices. I could really do it a disservsice and comapre the "core language", but that''s obivously stupid so we'll bring in some external libraries to make it easier. Of many ways to skin the cat here's one..

>Python

   import numpy.numpy as np
      gen = np.random.default.default_rng()
      B = gen.choice([True,False],(3,3))

I find myself just taking `rand(["Msg1",.....,"MsnN"])` to get a random string often. And small things like this are why you see people Julia is so nice to write and become so defendant of it.

Any examples? I've found Julia far easier for simple things than python. Most modern problems are mathematical and nature and I think it's pretty objective that julia looks closer to the mathematics. ----Some tests of very simple tasks in both languages.

At its most basic the obviouses becomes different:

Let's try to get a very simple object: a 3,3 matrix of random booleans in both languages: Julia:

A = rand(Bool,3,3)

Python: No standard support for Matrices. I could really do it a disservsice and comapre the "core language", but that''s obivously stupid so we'll bring in some external libraries to make it easier. Of many ways to skin the cat here's one.. Python

import numpy.numpy as np gen = np.random.default.default_rng() B = gen.choice([True,False],(3,3))

BTW julia has this choice function built into the command as well, so rand(["Which", "Word", "Will", "I", "get?"]) produces exactly what you'd expect.

----

Acutally I can't think of any cases at all off the top of my head. Sorry, I mean my np.somenamespace.another.namespace.sparce head :) I mean just going down the list of things that make code easier in Julia..

* Python requires a third party library for any kind of linear algebra. and matrix multiplication:*

  A =[1 4;6 7"; B = [2 ;3]; A*B doesn't work, i.e. you literally even multiply a matrix! This is madness.you'll need yet again a third partly library

Python doesnt have broadcasting. let's apply sin(x) to a matrix a Pythonic(+ required third party libraries)

  import numpy as np
 import math #sigh
      x = np.array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5])
      f = lambda x: sin(x)

Now in Julia (notice the . after sin) x=1:5 sin.(x) or more explicity we could write broadcast(sin, x)

Even basic string interpolation in Julia is a much nicer "trivial task" than in python alone

No special brackets, just clean "$myvar"

# Reading files is easier

Julia

    readlines("my_test.txt")

Python

open("my_test.txt").readlines()

What a stupid option in 2? if I call readlines on a filename, 99% of people, 99% of the time, want to read the lines on the file at that path. Why require two function calls?